April 28, 2016

About the policy of "supporters only of the presumptive nominee" & accompanying "purge" of others

Full disclosure: I have been a DU member for over a decade, and well remember how bitter the primary election cycle of 07-08 was (as a staunch Obama supporter from the first months of his declared campaign). Of course, there were few if any supporters of Hillary Clinton that had any problem supporting Barack Obama on or off DU, as far as I could see. And indeed, the political climate was such that Democrats had much smoother sailing INTRINSICALLY as opposed to relying on how distasteful the GOP choices were.
This cycle, I supported the idea of Bernie Sanders running -- and running in the Democratic primary campaign rather than as a 3d party splinter candidate -- from before he even announced, and have backed him from day 1 with multiple (albeit modest) donations.
I plan to continue to support him all the way, and if Hillary is the nominee, then in that situation I plan to join Bernie, as he has promised, in supporting her. I also support every effort to get as many Democrats to defeat GOP candidates in both House and Senate races, and have already donated in a number of these to Democratic candidates.

But I am aware that MANY MANY Bernie supporters, both on DU as among others that I encounter on the web, say at least at this point that they have no intention of voting for Hillary ever. There are many who advocate for what I think would be the counterproductive approach -- one Bernie surely is too smart to indulge -- of splitting off and running an Independent candidacy for president or endorsing Jill Stein or something if he isn't nominated. One reason this is counterproductive FOR BERNIE'S OWN MOVEMENT GOALS (and those of supporters like myself) is that any further effort to mobilize the more progressive Democrats WITHIN (as well as mobilizing outside) the Democratic Party would be largely foreclosed; this would be especially true of efforts to reach out to those who are progressive leaning and who backed Hillary in the primary campaign.

At any rate, Bernie supporting the Democrats would apparently NOT be sufficient for a lot of "Bernie-or-busters". I would like to both try to win them over during the campaign (particularly if they are eligible to vote in 'swing' states) but if they are purged or silenced on DU, that won't be possible at least here. Some suggest just going to other venues (like Reich's FaceBook threads) but that is rarely if ever as good a forum for that kind of discussion as DU

I would like to open up debate about the 'purge' policy. At minimum, those who cannot (at any point from the Convention on) bring themselves to support the Party's nominee should at least have limited posting priveleges, if that can be cybernetically accomplished by DU) in certain fora or forum, where at least their political allies in the primary campaign who now support the nominee can debate with them. That would I think be more likely to further DU's goals. And if posting privileges are limited, the danger of somehow damaging the larger site can be obviated

Personally, even this goes against my very strong free speech principles, but it would be better than the status quo

DOES ANYONE out there think there is anything to broaching this discussion? Is it permissible?

April 13, 2016

OUCH!!! How do other Sanderistas respond to Tom Hayden turning against Bernie ...

... and endorsing Hillary IN THE PRIMARY CAMPAIGN?????!!!!!!

https://www.thenation.com/article/i-used-to-support-bernie-but-then-i-changed-my-mind/

I think someone who has access to some kind of internet media (whether the Nation itself, or Talking Points Memo, or whatever) should put arguments here and elsewhere together into a rebuttal that actually gets published and distributed.

April 7, 2016

How can one appeal a decision to be banned from a group?

I know that literally HUNDREDS of other Bernie supporters have been banned from the Hillary group -- indeed many more DUers have been banned from the group than are members. So I have tried to be extra careful, while not bowdlerizing my criticisms -- a fine line to walk

I recently received an automated message that I had been banned from the Hillary group -- it doesn't even give a specification of a post or any reason or reference either to the group's SOP or to DU's rules. I would at least like an explanation (I sent a DUmail to the host who did the banning). As far as I know none of my posts have been hidden or put before a jury, so I guess neither that nor a warning is a pre-requisite

That strikes me as a very lousy system

At the very least people at DU should get some kind of explanation and reference to a post or posts that are at issue. That is only common sense.

April 5, 2016

Villanova wins national championship on Kris Jenkins game-winner

Source: Metro.us

Villanova won its first National Championship in 31 years after Kris Jenkins made a 3-pointer at the buzzer, besting a talented and slightly favored North Carolina squad 77-74 Monday night, capping off one of the most impressive NCAA Tournament runs in the history of college basketball.



Phil Booth made a career high 20 points, the Wildcats shot their tournament usual of above 50 percent (they bested UNC by a 58.3-49.2 percent margin) and suffocating defense helped lift Villanova after a lackluster first half.


With Villanova leading by three and just a few ticks left, UNC's Marcus Paige drilled a game-tying three to even things at 74-all. With 4.5 seconds left, the Wildcats had the ball and a chance to hit a shot and walk off as National Champions. Ryan Arcidiacono took the ball up court, passed it off to Jenkins and the three from the right side went in, finishing off one of the greatest National Championship games in history



Read more: http://www.metro.us/philadelphia/villanova-wins-national-championship-on-kris-jenkins-game-winner/zsJpde---nvUIlR2PjxP1U/

---

This was quite a game -- even if it wasn't THE championship, it would have been a thriller, tied up literally to the last second

This is a game that will obviously go down in history -- and this from a total non-basketball maven.

This was the time that was supposed to be for the primary debate?